Is there a nukes-cancer link? They'll try again

There are 4,217 children younger than age 5 living in San Clemente, in the shadow of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Are they twice as vulnerable to leukemia as children in, say, Irvine?

Several studies suggest that may be the case – including one by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research, which found that kids living within 3 miles of nuclear power plants had double the risk of developing acute leukemia as those living farther away.

The peak impact was on children between the ages of 2 and 4. France’s findings echoed those of a German study.

For decades, however, the official opinion of the United States government was this: “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities.”

Which brings into question, of course, the quality of said “data at hand.” The U.S. government drew this conclusion from a 1990 report that has been attacked as imprecise, outdated, a whitewash and worse – and after 20-plus years, the feds are finally giving it another go.

Researchers at our own National Academy of Sciences have embarked on an extremely complicated, $2 million pilot project probing health data for people living near San Onofre and six similar sites nationwide. It’s an attempt to more fully answer the question:Is living next to a nuclear reactor bad for your health?

The project is expected to be more comprehensive than the European studies and will take several years to finish. It is being paid for by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same folks who oversee San Onofre and the nation’s other 102 nuclear reactors.

While some say the effort is long overdue, others fear it may simply end up raising as many questions as it answers.

“This is not the first study of this kind. And as it doesn't address the structural problems that plagued past studies, it won't be the final study,” said Dave Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project, by email.

“I've lost count of the studies performed to date. Some report that radiation released from nuclear facilities has caused a threefold increase in cancer deaths and other radiation-induced problems (e.g., low birth rate, non-fatal cancer incidents, etc.). Other studies conclude that there are no discernible changes - positive or negative - from nuclear facility releases.

“Obviously, both outcomes cannot be correct. Sadly, both outcomes could be wrong.”

HERCULEAN EFFORT

The National Academy of Sciences warned the NRC that an undertaking of this magnitude would be extraordinarily difficult. Scientists are proceeding on two fronts, said study director Ourania Kosti, senior program officer with the National Academies’ Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board:

One probe will examine multiple types of cancer in people of all ages living within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of the seven nuclear sites; the other will probe cancers in children born within those 50 kilometers, since children are especially vulnerable to the effects of radiation.

In practical terms, this means scientists must gather decades' worth of data about births, cancer diagnoses and cancer deaths from six states, and then plot them, as accurately as possible, on maps surrounding the seven nuclear sites.

“There’s a lot of sensitivity about releasing this information,” Kosti said. “Each state has its own rules, and some have better records than others. Each one is like a totally separate country.”

It will also require scientists to gather decades’ worth of data about the release of radioactive gaskoes and liquids – accidental or otherwise – at all seven sites, and plot those on the maps as well. This information is kept by the NRC, which makes data collection easier – but the further back in time you go, the less reliable the data is. “The idea is that cancers don’t happen immediately,” Kosti said. “For cancers that were diagnosed in the ’80s and ’90s, you are interested in releases that occurred in the ’60s and ’70s. So the old information is important.”

Related Links

** HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL 12:01 A.M. EST MONDAY. THIS STORY MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR POSTED ONLINE BEFORE 12:01 A.M. EST MONDAY. ** This undated image provided by PNAS Early Edition shows a circulating tumor cell cluster isolated using the HB-Chip from the blood of a patient with metastatic prostate cancer. The blood test so sensitive that it can spot a single cancer cell lurking among a billion healthy ones is moving one step closer to being available at your doctor's office. Boston scientists who invented the test and health care giant Johnson & Johnson will announce Monday, Jan. 3, 2011 that they are joining forces to bring it to market. Four big cancer centers also will start studies using the experimental test this year. (AP Photo/PNAS Early Edition) HO

1 of

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.